5 ms·

> it does give the right to fork a project This is license specific. You can create an open source project which does not allow forking. Edit: Notably it seem

by casion 4y ago

> it does give the right to fork a project This is license specific. You can create an open source project which does not allow forking. Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source does not necessarily do so.

MereInterest 4y ago
It is license specific, and if forking is not allowed then it is not an open source license [0]. I consider "Open source" and "FLOSS" as equivalent terms, since "open source" as a term was proposed as an equivalent term to avoid negative connotations of "free" as low quality or not worth paying for[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#Four_essential_freedoms_of_Free_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso...
- CuriousSkeptic 4y ago
  The L for “libre” in FLOSS may be to avoid negative connotations of "free" as low quality or not worth paying for. The link you referenced are talking about an entirely different conflict, and it is very much not meant to be equivalent. Open Source was all about distancing from the political ideas associated with free software and the GNU project. Edit: A text by the other side of that conflict https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm...
johannes1234321 4y ago
> Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source does not necessarily do so. this depends on your definition if open source. OSI's definition of open source states """ 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. """ https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Which allows forking. I don't think that any definition of open source not allowing that have a wide spread support. Aside from the software license there is the question on trademark licensing. Some projects like Mozilla are quite strict on that, that however doesn't prevent forking Firefox, but just requires using a different name (like IceWeasle)
- casion 4y ago
  If it "depends on your definition", then it would appear that you agree with me when I say "does not necessarily do so".
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    It does not necessarily do so if you make up your own thing and label it open source rather than using the standard, intelligible, non-deceptive definition. For example, if you name your dog "Open Source," that doesn't even give me the right to pet it. But I don't think anybody is interested in talking about your dog.
  - johannes1234321 4y ago
    I was giving my definition, which I consider the "industry standard" which is the one by OSI (while I have some issues with the organisation that definition is useful) I however assumed you have another definition.
mpyne 4y ago
> Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source does not necessarily do so. This is not a confusion on their part, but on yours. "open source" is defined as it is deliberately, in response to organizations trying to confuse their users about the terms of the software they've offered. What you see today is the outcomes of years of debate from decades ago, and trying to have it mean something different would require a similar debate to change well-settled terms. If you want to talk about software where the source is available but may not be forked or redistributed, use terms like "source available" (which has its own Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software, showing that this isn't just my term or those of the other commenters here).

by casion 4y ago

MereInterest 4y ago

It is license specific, and if forking is not allowed then it is not an open source license [0]. I consider "Open source" and "FLOSS" as equivalent terms, since "open source" as a term was proposed as an equivalent term to avoid negative connotations of "free" as low quality or not worth paying for[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#Four_essential_freedoms_of_Free_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php https://web.archive.org/web/20021001164015/http://www.openso...

CuriousSkeptic 4y ago
The L for “libre” in FLOSS may be to avoid negative connotations of "free" as low quality or not worth paying for. The link you referenced are talking about an entirely different conflict, and it is very much not meant to be equivalent. Open Source was all about distancing from the political ideas associated with free software and the GNU project. Edit: A text by the other side of that conflict https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm...

johannes1234321 4y ago

> Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source does not necessarily do so. this depends on your definition if open source. OSI's definition of open source states """ 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. """ https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Which allows forking. I don't think that any definition of open source not allowing that have a wide spread support. Aside from the software license there is the question on trademark licensing. Some projects like Mozilla are quite strict on that, that however doesn't prevent forking Firefox, but just requires using a different name (like IceWeasle)

casion 4y ago
If it "depends on your definition", then it would appear that you agree with me when I say "does not necessarily do so".
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It does not necessarily do so if you make up your own thing and label it open source rather than using the standard, intelligible, non-deceptive definition. For example, if you name your dog "Open Source," that doesn't even give me the right to pet it. But I don't think anybody is interested in talking about your dog.
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  I was giving my definition, which I consider the "industry standard" which is the one by OSI (while I have some issues with the organisation that definition is useful) I however assumed you have another definition.

mpyne 4y ago

> Edit: Notably it seems some commenters here confuse the idea that FLOSS will allow for forking but open source does not necessarily do so. This is not a confusion on their part, but on yours. "open source" is defined as it is deliberately, in response to organizations trying to confuse their users about the terms of the software they've offered. What you see today is the outcomes of years of debate from decades ago, and trying to have it mean something different would require a similar debate to change well-settled terms. If you want to talk about software where the source is available but may not be forked or redistributed, use terms like "source available" (which has its own Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software, showing that this isn't just my term or those of the other commenters here).